Ethics watchdog group files first major lawsuit against Trump in his presidency

A left-leaning ethics watchdog group in Washington on Monday
filed the first major federal lawsuit against President Donald
Trump, suing him over what it believes is a violation of the
Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

The constitutional provision prohibits government officials from
receiving payments from foreign governments. It has not
previously been tested in court against a US president.

"These violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause pose a grave
threat to the United States and its citizens," the lawsuit from
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW,
said. "As the framers were aware, private financial interests can
subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders, and entanglements
between American officials and foreign powers could pose a
creeping, insidious threat to the Republic."

"The Foreign Emoluments Clause was forged of the framers'
hard-won wisdom," the lawsuit added. "It is no relic of a bygone
era, but rather an expression of insight into the nature of the
human condition and the preconditions of self-governance. And
applied to Donald J. Trump's diverse dealings, the text and
purpose of the Foreign Emoluments Clause speak as one: This
cannot be allowed."

During a brief appearance in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump
said the lawsuit was "totally without merit."

A spokesperson said Trump resigned from his business empire on
Monday, and, in a press conference earlier this month, Trump
said he would donate all profits generated by members of foreign
governments staying at his hotels to the US Treasury. However, he
did not say all payments, nor did he divest himself entirely of
his business empire or place it into a blind trust. The full
extent of his business empire is not fully known of because he
has refused to release his tax returns.

Trump announced that he would turn over control of his business
to his two adult sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., in
addition to a top Trump Organization executive, and that he would
step down from his official roles.

The lawsuit alleges that various Trump properties, including
Trump Tower in New York and the Trump International Hotel in
Washington, DC, are in violation of the Emoluments Clause, in
addition to business ventures in Scotland, Turkey, Russia,
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Indonesia, India, China, and
the United Arab Emirates.

CREW will be represented in the case by a fleet of top ethics
experts, including Norman Eisen, who served as the top ethics
lawyer for President Barack Obama, and Richard Painter, who
served as a top ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush.

Eisen said in a press release that the lawsuit will seek to have
Trump provide his tax returns, which the president has continued
to insist is going through a routine IRS audit, preventing him
from releasing them. Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to Trump, said
Sunday that the tax returns would never be released but walked
back the statement later, claiming that they are still under
audit.

"President Trump is the first president in decades not to release
his tax returns," Eisen said in the release. "We will seek those
in discovery in this case in order to establish the details of
the emoluments clause violations here."

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law
School who is also representing CREW in the case, said that
"nothing short of judicial force will end Trump's flagrant
disregard" of the Emoluments Clause.

During Trump's press conference earlier this month, Sheri Dillon,
a partner at Morgan Lewis who was serving as Trump's counsel on
his business entanglements, said that many were viewing the
Emoluments Clause inaccurately.

"These people are wrong," she said. "That is not what the
Constitution says."

She said the clause would not apply to something like a foreign
government official paying to stay at a Trump hotel.

"It's never been interpreted to mean fair-value exchanges. ... No
one would've thought that paying your hotel bill was an
emolument," she said. "Instead, it would've been thought of as a
fair-value exchange, not a gift or an emolument."